BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? September 2, 2009
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday,
September 2, 2009, at 2:00 P.M., on the First Floor of the Columbus
Consolidated Government Annex Building located at 420 10th Street.
Members Present: Mr. Wright Wade
Mr. Perry Borom
Mr. Bill Hart
Mr. Tom Moore
Also present representing the Inspections and Code Enforcement Department were
Danny Cargill, Secretary of the Board, Ms. Jacqueline Goodwin, Acting Recording
Secretary, Will Johnson, Planning Department, and Daniel Stegall, Planning
Department.
Call To Order:
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Mr. Wright Wade, Board
Chairperson.
VARIANCE APPEALS:
CASE NO. BZA-7-09-1715--DENIAL
Ms. Kim Bucciero, representing CST Holdings and AT&T, appeared before the Board
to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 425 Old Buena Vista Road,
to increase the height requirement from 100 feet allowed to 195 feet shown, for
a wireless communication facility. The property is zoned LMI.
Ms. Bucciero stated that they are requesting a variance and appealing the
decision the Planning Department that this tower is not a concealed support
structure. We have submitted a building permit application for the tower as a
concealed support structure. We want to increase the height to 195 feet and
concealed by ?candelabra? design. Ms. Bucciero presented copies to the Board
of a rendering of the tower.
Bucciero stated that there were two other locations with the same design.
Mr. Hart asked if both towers were over 100 feet.
Mr. Wade asked what were the details of the tower on Martin Luther King,
whereas, the BZA granted their appeal.
Mr. Will Johnson, Chief, Planning Department, stated that the same company came
forward approximately two or three ago, and their appeal was that the
candelabra design was a concealed support structure. At that time, the
Planning Department?s decision was that it was not a concealed support
structure. We considered it not to be a concealed support structure, but in
2006 or 2007 the BZA approved their appeal request. The Planning Department
stands by their opinion.
Mr. Hart stated that he was confused that Mrs. Bucciero stated that there was a
discrepancy in the ordinance regarding the height of the tower.
Mr. Johnson stated that the contradictory language had been removed, and the
table stands. I don?t think that Mrs. Bucciero will need a variance on the
height.
Mr. Cargill emphasized that the height is not an issue with this Board. The
issue is whether it is a concealed tower. If it is not considered a concealed
tower, but a new tower then they would need to go for a special exception
before the Council.
Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Department was in favor of a true monopole
when it came forward as a special exception use. The height of a tower in that
zoning classification, whether it is monopole or stealth tower, can be 200
feet. The issue is whether it is a stealth tower.
Ms. Bucciero stated that the basis of their appeal is that the ordinance states
that the equipment be concealed, and in their opinion the equipment is
concealed.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Hart motion that he reluctantly deny the
request based on the fact that it is not within the scope of this Board to make
an interpretation what is or what is not concealed tower. Mr. Borom seconded
the motion reluctantly. The motion was carried unanimously.
Mr. Wade stated that the wording on the appeal needed to be changed because
they are not asking for a height variance, but an interpretation of a concealed
tower. If it is a concealed tower then the height is okay.
CASE NO. BZA-7-09-1868--GRANTED
Mr. Billy Baird, Greenbell Properties, representing Mr. Watson, owner, appeared
before the Board to request a variance from the zoning ordinance for 357
Liberty Avenue, to reduce the left side yard requirement from 10 feet to 7
feet shown, and to reduce the right side yard requirement from 10 feet to 6
feet shown, for an addition to the rear of the existing single family dwelling.
The property is zoned RMF2.
Mr. Baird that the lot is 35 feet wide and the house on the lot is 24 feet wide
and 26 feet deep, the sidelines existing on the current house is 6 feet on the
left and 5 feet on the right. Mr. Watson wants to add 12 x 22 feet on the rear
of the house and still have 62 feet after the addition.
Mr. Wade pointed out that from what I can see, you will not be going out any
further than the existing structure but 2 feet less on each side; only going to
the rear.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
Mr. Hart motion to grant the request, based on the fact that there was no
opposition, and that the improvement is less on the encroachment than the
existing building. Mr. Borom seconded the motion. The motion was carried
unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-8-09-1910--GRANTED
Mrs. Debbie Jones, Signs Unlimited, appeared before the Board to request a
variance from the zoning ordinance for 2000 16th Avenue, to increase the number
of signs allowed from one to five shown. The property is zoned RO.
Mrs. Jones stated that they were requesting a variance to add signs that were
already there. They are essentially taking down existing signs on the campus
where there are two existing businesses, and replacing them with new sleeker
designs. We are within the 150 square feet of the sign face limit.
Mr. Wade asked if they were taking two signs and adding five signs.
Mrs. Jones replied that they will take down five signs and put up four signs.
One of the signs was eliminated by the customer. We already have a permit for
one of them. The signs will replace the ones being taken down, such as, the 9
ft sign that is 3 dimensional will be taken down, and replaced by a single face
6 ft sign on the same concrete base. We feel that we will be adding to the
property rather than taking away from the property.
Mr. Hart asked if he was correct to say that they were reducing the total
number of signs from five to four.
Mrs. Jones replied that in the beginning there were going to be six signs. We
have a permit for one, and the customer removed one, therefore we need a
variance for four.
Mr. Terry Parish, St. Francis Hospital Corporation, commented that the signs
are location signs to mark the area. This is for the Bradley Center, which is a
behavior health facility, and health dynamics; which is a community wellness
center. We serve the elderly population and dimension population. We need
these markings for them to be able to find the facility, as they are already at
a disadvantage. We are actually reducing the square footage and the number of
signs.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
Mr. Borom motion to grant the request, based on the fact that they are
replacing the existing signs, and reducing the number of signs on the
property. Also there was no opposition. Mr. Moore seconded the motion. The
motion was carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-8-09-1948?GRANTED
Mr. and Mrs. Juanito Campos, appeared before the Board to request a variance
from the zoning ordinance for 6515 Fairfax Way, to reduce the rear yard setback
from 30 feet required to 25 feet shown, in order to make an addition of two
additional rooms and closet to the rear of the existing residential dwelling.
The property is zoned SFR3.
Mr. Campos pointed out to the Board the layout of the additions on the site
plans.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
Mr. Hart motion to grant the request, based on the fact that there was no
opposition, and that it is a very small addition to the rear setback. Mr.
Borom seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-8-09-1977--GRANTED
Mr. Lloyd Hall appeared before the Board to request for a variance from the
zoning ordinance for 508 Double Churches Road, to reduce the minimum lot width
requirement from 100 feet required to 25 feet shown, for a single family
residential dwelling. The property is zoned SFR1.
Mr. Hall that we have an approximately 14 acre tract of land and it has been
replatted into 4 separate lots and the house itself is on Parcel D and it is
serviced by the 26 ft access that is where the driveway is and we are asking to
reduce the bldg because the property width of the bldg line is not the full
width we are talking about zoning, we are asking for 25 feet access.
Mr. Wade asked if will they still have access by the existing driveway.
Mr. Hall replied that there would still by the driveway. We are only
subdividing the 14 acres into several parcels.
Mr. Moore asked Mr. Hall if he was going from 100 feet required to 25 feet.
Mr. Hall replied that was correct, because the building line is not the full
width required by the code.
Mr. Moore further asked if they will come back and break up Parcel A, and asked
about Parcel B.
Mr. Hall replied that Parcel ?A? will be broken up for future development.
Parcel ?B? has a house on it now, and there is an existing security deed. We
did not want to disturb that deed. That will go away eventually.
Mr. Wade asked Mr. Hall if they had talked to the neighbors.
Mr. Hall replied that they had talked to several of them.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
Mr. Borom motion to grant the request based on the fact that the residences
are already there, and there was no opposition to the appeal. Mr. Hart
seconded the motion with an addendum that the Planning Department recommended
approval. The motion was carried unanimously.
CASE NO. BZA-8-09-1979?GRANTED
Mr. James McVae, Leary and Brown, Inc., appeared before the Board to request a
variance from the zoning ordinance for 2812 Hilton Avenue, to reduce the rear
yard setback requirement from 30 feet required to 10 feet shown, for an
addition of a garage and storage room to an existing single family residence.
The property is zoned SFR2.
Mr. McVae stated that we are requesting a variance for a 10 feet setback. The
current carport on the property is not connected to the house. It sits behind
the property. There is a metal building on the property approximately 10 feet
from the rear property line. All of these structures will be removed. The
plan is to have Reaves Wrecking come in and remove these structures and build a
new home on the property.
As I stated the metal building is about 10 feet from the rear line and the
carport sits approximately 6 feet from the left property line. We are going to
move that over to the right and do a side garage with a storage room behind it
(actually on the side).
Mr. Moore asked what backs up to the back of the property?
Mr. McVae replied that there were existing residences.
Mr. Hart pointed out that the primary reason he is having to do this is to try
to stay with the old setback requirement instead of trying to move forward 25
feet.
Mr. McVae stated that if they tried to move it up more than a few feet, it
would look out of place. You have houses lining the whole street, and there
are no new homes.
Mr. Wade asked if the existing carport was basically 17 feet away from the rear
property line.
Mr. McVae replied that the carport itself is about 27 feet, the metal storage
building sits behind the carport, and it is about 10 feet.
Mr. Wade asked if they will use the same type existing material on the existing
house?
Mr. McVae replied that in the preliminary plans it will be gable roof, brick
and siding as the house.
Mr. Joe West, 2819 Madden Drive, stated he had two or three conversations with
Mr. McVae and Mr. Cargill. My wife and I have lived on Madden Drive 23 or 24
yrs. I took pictures (which are not very clear) of the property and basically
to me it is issue of privacy. From my back yard with the vegetation, you can
barely see the existing lot. I thought the new garage was going to be on the
same line of the existing garage, but it will be moved over 20 or 30 feet. I
don?t want to lose my privacy. I have three issues of concerned if approved.
I am for improvement in the neighborhood, people building nice houses improving
property value, but (1) I want to be sure that it is a one story garage
(typical gable) and not a two story building where someone can put a
recreational or playroom, etc. (2) I want to be sure that there are no windows
on the back of the building. (3) I would like to have some type of landscape
buffer covering up part of the garage; right now when I go in the back yard it
is private, and I don?t want to turn around within the next six months and see
a 20 ft tall building.
Mr. Moore emphasized that part of Mr. West?s concern is that the new garage
will be moved further over to the property line, and he will be able to see
more of it from his yard.
Mr. West stated that it will be moved away from the neighbor on Hilton, but
closer to his property.
Mr. Wade asked how many trees will be removed.
Mr. McVae replied that no trees will be removed; no shrubs will be removed.
Mr. Wade further asked if there will be any landscaping.
Mr. McVae replied that what was there now is a lot nicer and more established
than what you can plant.
Mr. Wade asked if the plans show any upstairs.
Mr. McVae replied that there are no set of stairs in the plans, but it is left
up to the Harpers of a pull down stairway because there is storage in the
house. If there are windows on the gable, we can remove them.
Mr. Wade asked Mr. West, based on what you know now, are you opposing or not
opposing? There looks like there will not be problem with the three items you
had of concern.
Mr. West replied that with his concerns addressed, he was not opposing.
Therefore, there was no opposition present for this appeal.
Mr. Hart motion to grant the request, based on the fact that there was no
opposition. Also, the appellant stated that there would be no windows facing
the rear of the house, garage only, and nothing but possibly storage in the
attic, single story, and no removal of the existing trees. Mr. Moore seconded
the motion. The motion was carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING:
The minutes of the regular meeting of August 4, 2009 was presented for approval
as written.
Mr. Borom moved to accept the minutes of the regular meeting of August 4,
2009. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hart and carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned
at 3:00 p.m.
____________________ ________________
Wright Wade William L. Duck, Jr.
Chairperson Secretary
_____________________ __________________
Perry Borom Danny Cargill
Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary
Attachments
No attachments for this document.